Challenge
Library users access a variety of non-integrated systems: Humber Libraries, Humber.ca, Page1+, Database Lists, and Blackboard. With limited academic research skills, users struggle to grasp the full ecosystem. How might Humber Libraries optimize the Academic Research experience, considering the immutable nature of Page 1+ (library search tool) and Database Lists?
Solution
Conducted UX research and usability testing pre-redesign phase. Evaluated UI, search/filtering, labels and architecture with eventual and regular website students, faculty and staff.
Research/Business Goals
(1) Understand user behaviour and needs, assess anxiety factors/jargon and enhance UX; (2) Improve bounce rates, user engagement and depth of usage on underperforming pages.
Outcome
Report submitted to management and findings presented to staff.
My role (UX Researcher)
Responsibilities: Research methodology, design, materials, scheduling, facilitation, qualitative data analysis, and report presentation. Team: 1 Developer, 1 Systems Manager and 1 Technical Librarian
Research Process
HMW enhance the information-seeking experience to students?
Discovery: multiple methods to uncover the why's
The list below addresses the following Research Questions (RQs):
RQ1. How logical and user-centred is the overall information architecture of the website?
RQ2. What are the key usability measures/criteria where the website is falling short?
RQ3. How do users experience the website in getting their required information?
RQ4. How well did the website meet the expectations of its users?
RQ5. What are the most sought-after features required by users?
RQ1. How logical and user-centred is the overall information architecture of the website?
RQ2. What are the key usability measures/criteria where the website is falling short?
RQ3. How do users experience the website in getting their required information?
RQ4. How well did the website meet the expectations of its users?
RQ5. What are the most sought-after features required by users?
See the rationale and participant details below:
Data-driven decisions, questions and tasks
Analytics and Literature Review provided business context and pointed to underperforming pages.
The Patrons & Faculty (P&F) Survey gave birth to key website issues and informed the research questions. The Staff Survey informed the work goals for librarians and user needs, spawning tasks for Journey Mapping, Tree Testing, and Usability Testing. They have also been interviewed.
P&F Themes: Textbook look-up (10), Study room booking (10), Page1+ articles (8), Title search (6), Find databases (5), Research guides look-up (4). Staff Themes: Page 1+ search (11), Content type & Database list (9), Library staff contacts (4).
Usability Testing Sessions
Recruitment categories: frequency of use, school year, degree, campus, and tasks. Focused on desktop users (77%). Indigenous, International, and Black students shared insights in Focus Groups.
Data analysis in Excel: evaluated success, backtracking, and directness (time excluded for Design phase).
Moderated test results aligned with survey, except 'easy-to-use menus'. The anonymous feedback was lower. When observed, users often overrated the website and self-blamed.
In conversations, Faculty emphasized speed, students emphasized design and find the help features insufficient. For both groups, system efficiency is lacking.
Usability Findings
1. Navigational Elements
Fig. 1: Library website homepage.
Fig. 2: Home > Content Type (modal menu).
Users forget the library URL.They come from Google, lack a quick link from Humber.ca, and deal with distracting dual logos (1) on the homepage. Navigational problems stem from too many icons (2) and unclear login. 'MyAccess' (3) login goes unnoticed, keeping the library account/ dashboard hidden.
The Page1+ library search (4) lacks indexing. Users have limited research skills and access the tool for all kinds of searches, obtaining incomplete results. The search filters 'everything' vs. textbooks' (5) are not clear, especially for novices. 'Content-type' (6) menu is misread as a search filter, leading to unintended clicks, new attempts, delays, and anxiety.
The Page1+ library search (4) lacks indexing. Users have limited research skills and access the tool for all kinds of searches, obtaining incomplete results. The search filters 'everything' vs. textbooks' (5) are not clear, especially for novices. 'Content-type' (6) menu is misread as a search filter, leading to unintended clicks, new attempts, delays, and anxiety.
2. Architecture and Labelling
Some headings and pathways had unclear relationships among same-level subcategory links and no mutually exclusive labels, with impact on Findability.
In the example below, students began well by choosing the right label (Services) but got lost or accessed incorrect paths. Like in e-commerce, users expected to find policies on book-details pages. Some rushed to FAQs or chat.
In the example below, students began well by choosing the right label (Services) but got lost or accessed incorrect paths. Like in e-commerce, users expected to find policies on book-details pages. Some rushed to FAQs or chat.
Fig.3: Sample of the tree testing analysis.
In all Tree Testing sessions, users shared their content expectations and understanding of the menu labels. Their feedback helped the Design, Architecture and Content teams in the redesign phase.
Labels: Services, My Program, About Us, My Access, Research Help, Help and Content-Type.
3. Aesthetics /Visual Elements
Misleading UI - The system failed to meet usability standards for search boxes (Home, Database, FAQs). This affected learnability and task duration, forcing users to grasp feature usage.
Inconsistent UI - Icons and images lacked uniform style and color. The login feature failed in meeting usability standards. Users were unaware of their accounts. The footer was missing, which disrupted humber.ca website standards.
Fig.4: Library website homepage.
Fig.5: Database Links with user obsetvations.
In the example above, the search bar and database links should not be placed side by side since these are separate systems. Users often preferred to save their favorite links for easy access.
Fig.6: FAQ page with user observations.
4. Support Tools
Policies and Renewals: unfamiliar mental models; finding the info under 'Services' was challenging. Influenced by e-commerce patterns, users looked for it on book detail pages (specifications) and tabs.
ChatLine & Anxiety: Gen Z users displayed lower browsing tolerance and chose the chat function. Alternative methods: email and in-person support.
FAQs: Steep learning curve, text-heavy, lacked search box and/or a sidebar for easy scanning.
Conclusion & Next Steps
The data across all qualitative methods was sorted into positives, pain points, and good ideas. A Thematic Analysis gave birth to clear themes that aimed to steer enhancements in Navigation, Content, Layout, and Functionality across all user groups (students, faculty, and staff), shaping a more user-centric website.
Our next goal is to implement usability standards on key underperforming pages, enhance access to unmodifiable features like Page1+ and Database Links, and include a robust research guide for users on the library website.
Despite the time constraints, I delved into the emotional journey users experience in the Journey Mapping phase, complementing the data from our Usability Testing to gain a deeper understanding of how users connect with the system.
Despite the time constraints, I delved into the emotional journey users experience in the Journey Mapping phase, complementing the data from our Usability Testing to gain a deeper understanding of how users connect with the system.
Throughout this project, I gained confidence in design thinking, user research, user facilitation, data analysis and note-taking. Every decision made was rooted in understanding users' real needs, supported by data-driven insights.
